And the only commercially geodata available in digital format, from a few specialized companies, were for car navigation in lucrative markets (like the US and Europe). It wasn't a given that online maps work properly or show more than base coverage outside those regions.
Only recently maps providers started integrating user created content. OSM as a whole is also surprisingly sparse outside those established markets.
Just a reminder, back in 2007 Mexico wasn't even covered by Google.
http://google-latlong.blogspot.de/2007/09/more-of-world-for-...
That tradition didn't last much longer (if any?) than the current state has already lasted.
(Well, probably. Anyway, big tech companies are doing a lot of the work that goes towards satellite and aerial imagery being easy for people to access. So are governments. It just isn't as clear cut as you stated it.)
I didn't mean to imply that they're purposefully ignoring things, but that it's difficult to create a methodology for mapping the world that doesn't ignore features of it — either by accident or as a rule.
- It shouldn't be there?
- Try telling that to the local population...
My comment was to agree with the concept that its easy for me to blindly believe in what the big tech companies publish. Mapping or otherwise.
I love Doctor Who episodes where on the surface everything looks normal, but on closer inspection things are very different (eg Weeping Angels or The Silence).
Compared to the image of the world you get from your chair without those tech companies, I wouldn't describe it as 'holes', but as filling in 99% of the white areas.
Columbus didn't create a huge hole in the wolrd's map
When I was a kid I liked to go buy USGS maps of the area around where I lived. While what's online is certainly not perfect, I find the fact that I can get detailed, free maps of almost the entire world nothing short of amazing!
When you spend all of your time inside of that image of the world it's difficult to see the gaps. I love this. It's as if he walked in to a void.